ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2018
3:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act relating to identification cards; relating to vehicle
registration fee rates; relating to changes of address; relating
to driver's license fees; and relating to financial
responsibility for motor vehicles."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Urging the United States Congress to reaffirm the commitment of
the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being
of refugees and displaced persons; urging the United States
government to uphold its international leadership role in
responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance
and to work with the international community and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to find solutions to
conflicts and protect refugees; and urging the President of the
United States to continue to mitigate the burden placed on
frontline refugee host countries.
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 196(FIN)(EFD FLD)
"An Act relating to an appropriation limit; and relating to the
budget responsibilities of the governor."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION ON PENALTIES FOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION
- HEARD
APPROVAL OF INTRODUCTION OF POTENTIAL COMMITTEE LEGISLATION
SENATE BILL NO. 204
"An Act relating to special registration plates for vehicles
owned by veterans with disabilities."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
04/05/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/18 (H) STA, FIN
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE: URGE U.S. SUPPORT OF REFUGEES
SPONSOR(s): JOSEPHSON
01/24/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/18 (H) CRA, STA
02/13/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/22/18 (H) Moved HJR 30 Out of Committee
02/22/18 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/27/18 (H) Adopted Fiscal Note
02/28/18 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1DNP 2NR
02/28/18 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, PARISH
02/28/18 (H) DNP: TALERICO
02/28/18 (H) NR: LINCOLN, SADDLER
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 196
SHORT TITLE: APPROPRIATION LIMIT; BUDGET RESERVE FUND
SPONSOR(s): FINANCE
02/19/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/18 (S) FIN
02/28/18 (S) STA REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FIN
03/06/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/06/18 (S) Moved SB 196 Out of Committee
03/06/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/18 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR
03/07/18 (S) DP: MEYER, GIESSEL, WILSON
03/07/18 (S) DNP: EGAN
03/07/18 (S) NR: COGHILL
03/15/18 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/18 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/18 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
03/16/18 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, BISHOP, VON
IMHOF, STEVENS, MICCICHE
03/16/18 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/16/18 (S) Moved CSSB 196(FIN) Out of Committee
03/16/18 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y13 N5 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) UPHOLD RULING OF THE CHAIR Y11 N7 E1 A1
03/23/18 (S) ENGROSSED
03/28/18 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/18 (S) VERSION: CSSB 196(FIN)(EFD FLD)
03/29/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/18 (H) STA, FIN
04/10/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/18 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 409.
GABBY WEISS, Student
Colony Middle School
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 30.
ASHLEY STRAUCH, Staff
Representative Adam Wool
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation on marijuana on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Adam Wool.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a section-by-section analysis of
a work draft on penalties for marijuana possession, on behalf of
the sponsor, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins.
TRACY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation.
MARLA THOMPSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 409.
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
409.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:16:16 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:16 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Wool, Tuck, Birch, and Knopp
were present at the call to order. Representatives LeDoux and
Johnson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
3:17:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to identification
cards; relating to vehicle registration fee rates; relating to
changes of address; relating to driver's license fees; and
relating to financial responsibility for motor vehicles."
3:17:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 409; and
after first determining no one wished to testify, closed public
testimony on HB 409.
3:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for an explanation of the violations
that one would need an SR-22 [certificate of financial
responsibility] insurance for life.
3:18:24 PM
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), stated there were two
instances where a person would need an SR-22 [proof of financial
responsibility] for life. Under AS 28.20.330, if a person
failed to pay a judgment stemming from an automobile accident
with a suspended license and later satisfied the judgment, the
person would need SR-22 for life. The second instance pertained
to DUIs [driving while under the influence]. If a person had
four or more DUIs or refused to submit to a chemical test, the
person would need an SR-22 as long as the person was licensed to
drive. He explained the increased penalties for DUIs, that the
first DUI or refusal to submit to a chemical test would
necessitate SR-22 coverage for five years, the second offense
for ten-years, and the third offense for 20 years. All other
SR-22 requirements would be imposed for three years, for
example, in instances in which people had their licenses
suspended or revoked for another reason and their license was
later reinstated. The SR-22 provision would apply for those
involved in vehicular accidents while their licenses were
suspended and driving without insurance so when their licenses
were reinstated these drivers must obtain SR-22 for three years.
3:20:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on the SR-22
requirements for a first DUI and whether the penalty was similar
to that of a first refusal [to submit to a chemical test].
MR. STANKER answered yes; the first DUI or refusal would result
in SR-22 coverage for five years.
3:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related that the DUI and refusal [to submit
to a chemical test] were parallel offenses. He asked for
clarification on the first instance, which is the one HB 409
would address.
MR. STANKER said that the bill seeks to address the situation in
which a person involved in motor vehicle accident was sued, a
judgment was issued, but the person failed to pay the judgment
within 30 days. The court would notify the DMV and the person's
license would be suspended until the judgment was paid, unless
it fit one of the exceptions. Exemptions would include that the
driver entered into a payment plan with the judgment creditor,
or consent to reinstate the license was given; in those
circumstances the person would need SR-22 proof of financial
responsibility for life.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that the penalty for non-payment
within 30 days was worse than for a driver convicted of three
DUIs. He assumed that was the reason AS 28.20.330 was being
amended.
3:22:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Representative Wool was
correct.
MR. STANKER answered yes. He stated that for the third DUI or
refusal conviction, the driver would be subject to SR-22 for 20
years; that a driver with four or more DUI convictions is
subject to a lifetime requirement, which is the same penalty
that a person who failed to pay off a judgment within 30 days
would receive.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK hoped that the penalty provisions could be
fixed. He expressed concern that a 21-year-old who was in a car
accident but did not pay the judgment timely must spend the rest
of his/her life providing SR-22 proof of responsibility [or
high-risk insurance]. The penalty did not have anything to do
with risk or driving ability but rather whether the driver paid
the judgment within the 30-day required timeframe. The penalty
was the same for someone with multiple DUIs, he said.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
3:24:27 PM
MR. STANKER, in response to Representative Knopp, agreed that
under the current statute if a person does not pay within 30
days his/her driver's license is suspended until the judgement
is satisfied in whole unless they fell within one of the
exceptions previously mentioned.
3:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether an uninsured driver involved a
motor vehicle accident who had [his/her license suspended] for
three months must also obtain SR-22 for three years.
MR. STANKER answered yes; that a person whose license was
suspended as a result of an accident - either for personal
injury or a dollar threshold amount - would be required to
provide SR-22 for three years after the suspension period ended.
3:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL (audio difficulties) related a scenario
requiring SR-22 for life, in which an insured driver had an
accident, a judgment for monetary damage was issued and the
driver did not pay timely. That driver would be required to get
high-risk insurance. He asked whether an uninsured driver would
be punished as severely as the insured driver in such a
scenario.
MR. STANKER answered that one exception to mandatory lifetime
SR-22 proof of responsibility applies if an insurance company
was liable for payment but did not cover a portion of the
monetary damage. In that instance, the driver would be liable
and must provide SR-22 for life. The three-year requirement for
SR-22 would apply if a driver should have had insurance but
failed to do so and his/her actions resulted in a suspended
license. He concluded that these two scenarios were related but
were also different.
3:27:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:29 p.m. to 3:29 p.m.
3:29:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
[HB 409 was set aside.]
HJR 30-URGE U.S. SUPPORT OF REFUGEES
3:30:09 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 196(FIN)(efd fld), "An Act
relating to an appropriation limit; and relating to the budget
responsibilities of the governor."
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony on HJR 30.
3:30:46 PM
GABBY WEISS, Student, Colony Middle School, paraphrased from
written testimony, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good morning, my name is Gabby Weiss and I am
from Palmer, Alaska. I have come here today to explain
the importance of House Joint Resolution No. 30 and to
urge all the committee members to help make this
resolution a reality.
First off, a brief recap of the magnitude of the
refugee crisis and refugees in general. According to
the Oxford Dictionary, a refugee is defined as "a
person who has been forced to leave their country in
order to escape war, persecution, or natural
disaster." That is all a refugee is. Just from the
definition, it is known that the term refugee means a
person, someone who is as human as you and me, who is
fleeing their country because it isn't safe. I think
that sometimes we people get caught up on the labels.
Because we are referring to the people who are fleeing
from violence as this new population, the "refugees,"
there is this barrier that is put up that makes us
humans feel like we are somehow very different from
each other.
It very intangible for us to grasp what refugees
are going through because right now, we are inside,
dry and warm, fed and watered, safe and sound, but
there are men, women, and children, who are fleeing
from war, persecution, or natural disaster...right
now. And it isn't like it is just hundreds of people,
or thousand of people, and it's not even just a
million people. No, according to the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, it is 22.5 million
people, women, men and children, fleeing for their
safety. That means that if you take the population of
Alaska and multiply it by 30, that number is still
less than all the refugees in the world. And guess how
many of that number of refugees are children. Is it a
10th, a 5th or a 3rd? No! More than one half of those
22.5 million people are children, under the age of 18.
They didn't choose to be born into an unsafe area.
3:31:38 PM
MS. WEISS continued to paraphrase and read portions of her
written testimony, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
That is a huge number of people facing adversity
and trauma, but even though you can't help everyone,
you can still make a difference! If the United States
uses its leadership to start encouraging other
countries to take in refugees, as well as tries to
prevent and help out in the events that create
refugees, imagine how many lives you could improve.
Also, the United States can benefit from taking in
refugees itself. In fact, the National Bureau of
Economic Research explains, an adult refugee will
generally pay 21,000 dollars more in taxes than they
will receive in benefits in their first 20 years in
the United States.
3:32:07 PM
MS. WEISS continued to paraphrase her written testimony,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A thought stopping Americans from welcoming
refugees is the idea that refugees may be terrorists.
However, a terrorist would not chose to come to the US
through the refugee resettling process. The accepting
process of refugees includes in depth vetting and
according to the US Department of State, it can take
up to 24 months. In addition, as of 2015, expert
Kathleen Newland from the Migration Policy Institute
said, "The United States has resettled 784,000
refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years,
exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested
for planning terrorist activitiesand it is worth
noting two were not planning an attack in the United
States and the plans of the third were barely
credible."
The last reason why we should help is because
these people, these refugees, need our help. The
refugee crisis has created horrible situations for all
refugees. Families become split apart and lives get
put on hold. According to United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, there are 3.5 million
refugee children who should be in school, but aren't.
Also, rates sometimes as high as 86% project post
traumatic stress disorder in refugees according to the
US Department of Veterans Affairs. Lastly, according
to the Mercy Corps Organization, one half of Syria's
population before the war, that is 11 million plus
people, have been killed or forced to abandon their
homes due to the Syrian conflict.
3:32:46 PM
MS. WEISS continued to paraphrase her written testimony,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Because we are the lucky ones who get to have
meetings, and eat lunch, and read the newspaper, and
spend time with our friends and families, we need to
take it upon ourselves to care and support the other
humans who aren't as lucky as us. This is so important
to me because if I was fleeing for my safety, I would
want someone to help me. To conclude, I am asking all
the committee members to please vote for House Joint
Resolution No. 30. Thank you so much for your time.
3:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH (audio difficulties) asked that her
testimony be emailed.
MS. WEISS reiterated that she attends Colony Middle School in
Palmer, Alaska.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX provided the e-mail address for the committee:
hsta@akleg.gov. She said it was great to have students involved
in the legislative process.
3:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked Ms. Weiss for calling in. She
thanked her for all of the work she has done on HJR 30.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX, after first determining no one wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 30.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced HJR 30 would be held over.
SB 196-APPROPRIATION LIMIT; BUDGET RESERVE FUND
3:35:19 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 196(FIN)(efd fld), "An Act
relating to an appropriation limit; and relating to the budget
responsibilities of the governor."
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony and after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
SB 196.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that SB 196 would be held over.
^PRESENTATION ON PENALTIES FOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION
PRESENTATION ON PENALTIES FOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION
3:36:06 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business
would be a presentation: Penalties for Marijuana Possession.
3:36:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:37:47 PM
ASHLEY STRAUCH, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, stated her presentation was the result of draft
legislation being considered by the committee. She stated the
proposed bill would not be introduced this legislative session
due to committee time constraints at this late juncture. The
focus of the presentation concerns possession of marijuana on
school grounds, she said. The current law mandates that
possession of marijuana on school grounds, school buses, and in
or near youth centers was a felony.
3:39:14 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, referred to a work draft [not
specifically identified] for a proposed bill that will not be
introduced during this legislative session. She reviewed the
sectional analysis: Section 1 would remove a section that makes
it a Class C felony to possess any amount of marijuana within
500 feet of school grounds, on school buses, or within 500 feet
of youth centers. She added that even an otherwise legal amount
possessed by an adult would be considered a Class C felony in
any of these circumstances.
3:39:56 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE said that Section 2 would make it a Class A
misdemeanor to possess more than one ounce, which is in line
with penalties outside of these restricted areas. She explained
that a person who possessed more than one ounce on the street
would be subject to a Class A misdemeanor. This would make that
true across the board, she said.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE stated that Section 3 would make it a Class B
misdemeanor to possess up to one ounce within 500 feet of a
school or on a school bus. She advised that it was already a
Class B misdemeanor for a minor to possess up to one ounce,
which is a legal amount for an adult to possess. The penalty
for a minor in possession is currently a Class B misdemeanor and
this section would make it true for minors across the board, but
it would make it a Class B misdemeanor for adults to possess a
legal amount of marijuana within one of the restricted areas.
3:40:38 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE related that Section 4 would establish an
affirmative defense to be in a private residence within 500 feet
of a school. It would mean that as an adult the person could
possess an otherwise legal amount of marijuana.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE related that Section 5 provided statutory
clean-up to align with other sections of the bill. Section 6
would ensure that the provisions in the bill do not apply
retroactively and would not affect pending cases, even if the
case was decided after the effective date of the bill, she said.
3:41:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related his understanding that the intent
of the original felony was to prevent people from "dealing"
drugs at a school. This proposed work draft would reduce the
crime from a felony to Class A or B misdemeanors.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered yes; that the proposed draft would
make it a Class A misdemeanor to possess more than an ounce and
a Class B misdemeanor to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.
3:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if the work draft moved forward and
was adopted if the proposed bill would remove severe penalties
for those who tried to "deal" drugs in a school area. He said
he agreed with the concept of reducing penalties for students,
but he did not agree with reducing penalties for those who were
"dealing" drugs in school areas. He asked whether this bill
would address both issues.
3:42:30 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE acknowledged that Representative Knopp was
correct since one concern for minors is that students would have
a small amount of marijuana for recreational use and concern was
that they could incur felony convictions that could potentially
follow them the rest of their lives. This was particularly a
concern since some students turn the age of 18 while in high
school; thus, these students could be tried as adults and the
convictions could be very serious. She stated that it would
make it a Class B misdemeanor for an adult to possess an
otherwise legal amount within 500 feet of a school grounds. She
stated there was room to consider returning to a Class C felony
by creating a narrower exception, for example, for an adult
within school grounds.
3:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said he would like to consider misdemeanor
penalties for those under 18 years of age possessing
recreational amounts; however, stiffer penalties for those above
the age of consent possessing more than a recreational amount
should stay in place.
3:43:48 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX suggested the sponsor may wish to
differentiate between an adult on the school grounds who is not
attending the school and an adult who is present on the school
grounds but is a senior in high school who has reached
adulthood. She stated that there could be a rational
distinction along those lines.
3:44:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that "an ounce or more" for an adult
off school grounds was a misdemeanor but "under an ounce" was
legal. He asked for further clarification that if someone
possessed an ounce and a half of marijuana, whether that
represented the difference between a person dealing or non-
dealing. He envisioned a situation could arise in which a
person picked up his/her child after school and happened to have
slightly over the legal amount in their vehicle. He further
asked for the distinction between dealing and non-dealing.
MS. STRAUCH responded that the statutes do not definitively
address the amount that constitutes a dealing amount versus a
possession amount; however, in public, outside of school grounds
an amount over an ounce tends to lead to further investigation
as to the type of activity involved. She added that this
proposed [work draft] would put the penalties for adults on
school grounds in line with penalties that exist in public;
except that currently a person possessing under an ounce as an
adult off school property falls within the legal amount. She
commented it still would be illegal to carry any amount of
marijuana on school grounds.
3:46:04 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised members that the sponsor has had
conversations with prosecutors about "dealing" marijuana. She
related there were other crimes people could be charged with
beyond simple possession. She remarked that the prosecutors
indicated it was always very clear to them when an amount was
for personal use and whether it was for dealing, not based on
ounces, but on testimony from witnesses. In those instances,
the prosecutors would pursue additional charges that compound
the offense, she said.
3:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that the intent to distribute
drugs typically would be indicated by other things, for example,
someone holding 20 small packages, or possessing scales and
other paraphernalia. He offered his belief that someone
possessing slightly over the legal amount was different than
someone who law enforcement determined had intent to distribute.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered that was correct.
3:47:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she was mayor when marijuana
was legalized in Alaska. She noted that police can smell
marijuana and it is often easy to detect; however, usually when
people are dealing drugs, they hide the drugs. She pointed out
that police dogs are trained to sniff out marijuana as dealers
with large quantities of other drugs often possess marijuana, as
well. She wondered what problem the proposed bill would like to
fix. She acknowledged that someone whose home was in close
proximity to the school might benefit and that this proposal
might give law enforcement additional tools.
MS. STRAUCH answered that the proposed work draft would address
several concerns. First, it would eliminate a felony record for
youth who possessed any amount of marijuana since some might
find it to be a harsh penalty for someone under the age of 18.
Second, it would also fix or attempt to fix the situation in
which parents or other adults are near a school ground or pick
up students after school and they have marijuana in their car or
on their person. This proposal would reduce the penalty for
possession of recreational products. It would also remove youth
center from the definition of school grounds. She said that the
statutory definition for youth centers is defined very broadly
as any public or private entity that caters to any youth under
the age of 18.
MS. STRAUCH offered that as a child she attended a day care in a
residential neighborhood. The day care lacked proper signage so
there was not any indication this was a day care facility, but
in statute that would qualify as a youth center. She stated
that removing this from the definition could help prevent people
who are participating in activities that would otherwise be
legal from [inadvertently committing a felony crime] and have it
on their record.
3:50:47 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE, to address the point that police could more
easily detect marijuana due to its aroma, stated that the
proposed work draft would make possession on school grounds a
misdemeanor, making it a justifiable cause for law enforcement
to search.
3:51:00 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned the gavel to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.
3:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for statistics related to the
frequency of instances in which a person has been charged a
Class C felony for being within 500 feet of a school, on a
school bus, or within 500 feet of a youth center.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE responded that the sponsor has been speaking
with prosecutors but found it was difficult to track because
many of these cases were "plead down," such that people would be
charged with a Class C felony but would plead guilty to a
misdemeanor. In other instances, the cases relate to juveniles
and are sealed cases. She indicated that the sponsor was
working to determine the number of cases, but she did not have a
firm number.
3:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that was a reasonable approach. He
further said that pleading down the cases seemed reasonable and
he thought that prosecutors were working to be reasonable. He
hoped the prosecutors still had the ability to get the "bad"
guys selling drugs.
3:53:21 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), reviewed
statistics from FY 13-18. She stated that the division has had
909 referrals, which is the equivalent of a police report for
the division, for possession of marijuana on school grounds. In
FY 18 the division has had 101 referrals thus far, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether any of those cases been
prosecuted as felonies (audio difficulties) and if they were
mostly juveniles.
MS. DOMPELING answered that in the majority of cases the
division probation officers also use other mechanisms to hold
the youth accountable for being in possession of marijuana on
school grounds. She said that the division has the statutory
authority and flexibility to not prosecute cases. She related
that a small number of juveniles were taken to court for the
offense of possession of marijuana on school grounds; however,
it is rare to bring such a case to court for a felony. She
explained that the youth may have gotten into a fight at school
and have stolen an iPod from a student and during that
investigation it surfaces that the youth was also in possession
of marijuana. Therefore, the division might petition the court
for three charges and not just request a stand-alone charge for
possession of marijuana on school grounds.
3:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP (audio difficulties) asked whether the DJJ
needed the statutory changes since the division currently has
the flexibility.
MS. DOMPELING responded that regardless of whether the charge
was a felony or misdemeanor offense, it does not change the way
the DJJ responds to allegations of this type of delinquency.
The system was not one based on a cumulative system of specific
amount of time served but rather is based on looking at the
youth's likelihood of risk to reoffend as well as what needs the
youth has to prevent them from committing future crimes.
3:56:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP remarked that he found it really intriguing
that this generation was working to remedy this issue. He said
he would hate to see students charged with felonies that follow
them around for the rest of their lives. He hoped that this
work draft would be pursued next year. He affirmed that the
committee brought up not allowing people on school grounds for
[dealing drugs] to only be charged misdemeanors.
3:57:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he thought this issue might be worth
looking into a little more. He did not anticipate moving
forward with it this legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that under the
initiative marijuana was supposed to be treated like alcohol.
She asked what the penalties for possession of alcohol on school
grounds.
MS. DOMPELING responded that she did not know for certain since
minor consuming alcohol charges are not referred to the DJJ.
3:58:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled that two years ago the legislature
changed the law (audio difficulties) to reduce the penalties so
that everyone at a party would be charged with a violation and
not a misdemeanor. He was uncertain as to whether it
differentiated between school grounds or not. He offered his
belief that marijuana is treated differently since it is illegal
federally.
3:59:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed an interest in knowing how
[alcohol] is treated on school grounds.
3:59:43 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), said that two years ago, Senate Bill 165 changed the
penalties for underage/drinking minor consuming alcohol to a
$500 fine, a district court appearance, with an option to go
through the ASAP [Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program] or youth
court to address the underage drinking. The division does not
consider alcohol-related offenses, he said. He noted that
specific statutes address alcohol consumption at schools, noting
it is currently a misdemeanor for adults and juveniles to
consume alcohol on school grounds or at school events. Both
bodies of the legislature have been considering reducing it to a
violation, he said.
MR. DAVIDSON said the division reviewed its records related to
alcohol consumption on school grounds and does not have any
referrals; that any underage drinking on school grounds would
result in "minor possession" and not a misdemeanor.
4:01:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how selling alcohol on school
grounds would be handled.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that it would be covered in Title 4 [by
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board].
4:01:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his belief that someone over 21
years of age furnishing alcohol to a minor is currently a
misdemeanor, noting he was unsure if it differentiated between
school grounds or not. He was also unsure of penalties for
minors selling alcohol.
MR. DAVIDSON agreed. He clarified that furnishing alcohol to a
minor is currently a misdemeanor and would be addressed by
legislation under consideration in both bodies. He acknowledged
that the division does receive referrals for minors under the
age of 18 for misdemeanor offense of furnishing alcohol to
minors. He added the penalty is increased to a felony if harm
or injury occurs.
4:02:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that there was
not a complete "apples-to-apples comparison" [between alcohol
and marijuana penalties] (audio difficulties) but they were
close; currently it is a Class C felony to possess marijuana and
it is effectively a misdemeanor to possess alcohol on school
premises, possibly a violation if the Title 4 rewrite were to
pass.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that the division does not review cases
for misdemeanor charges for underage drinking. He remarked that
typically adults drinking alcohol on school premises are not
charged but would be asked to "pour it out" or leave the
premises and juveniles are charged with "minor possession." He
clarified that the [marijuana] initiative did not change any of
the penalties for violations by anyone under 21 years of age.
He acknowledged that Representative LeDoux was part of the
discussions that considered changing criminal penalties, but the
criminal penalties for minors under the age of 21 possessing,
consuming or using marijuana have not changed and are intact.
4:04:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled how disciplinary measures and
criminal charges for marijuana possession have changed from his
generation to the current one, noting police were often not
brought in to charge students; however, it has gotten much more
restrictive and any amount of marijuana possession in a school
could result in a felony conviction now. He recalled earlier
testimony that the threat of felony was often used as leverage
for plea bargains. He asked whether any adults had been charged
with felonies for incidental possession of marijuana on school
grounds.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that might better be directed to
the Department of Law or the Department of Public Safety.
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
4:05:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked to return to the hearing on HB 409.
4:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, with respect to proposed Section 11, noted
the penalty [under AS 28.20.330(b)] was reduced from lifetime to
requiring proof of financial responsibility [SR-22] for 10
years; however, he thought 10 years seemed a bit severe for
someone who did not pay the [penalty] within 30 days when the
penalty for a first time DUI offense was five years. He stated
that the penalties seemed [inequitable] or onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed; however, if the driver has
insurance the person would not pay since liability insurance
does not have any deductibles.
4:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL responded that he was uncertain what
circumstances would cause someone to be assessed a judgment. He
recalled earlier testimony that a driver could have insurance,
be involved an accident, assessed a judgment, not pay it within
30 days, and be subject to SR-22 for life. He thought that was
a correct assessment.
MR. STANKER restated the question, that if a person had
insurance, [and was involved in a crash] but the insurance did
not cover some portion of the civil judgment, that the driver
could have his/her license suspended and be subject to a
lifetime of SR-22. He acknowledged he was not well versed with
automobile insurance; however, he agreed with the scenario and
lifetime SR-22 requirement.
4:09:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she would like to hear from the
Division of Insurance because in her experience as an attorney
in private practice she did not think liability insurance had
deductibles.
4:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that liability insurance probably
had capped amounts, including ones for injuries so some
responsibility could fall on the person causing the accident.
He also expressed concern with the penalty provision requiring
lifetime SR-22 for failure to pay judgments timely. He said it
seemed extreme especially since it related to financial
obligation and not due to the driver's ability. He speculated
that the penalty would benefit the insurance industry. He
compared it to a debtor's prison, such that the person is bound
for life whereas someone who had been drinking and driving has
lots of extra chances, yet these drivers put the public at risk.
4:11:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that what Representatives Tuck and
Wool have said also resonated with him. He asked whether [the
lifetime requirement for] SR-22 made logical sense.
4:11:55 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, stated the reason for a judgment
(audio difficulties) usually has resulted from drivers without
any insurance having an accident, were sued, lost the lawsuit,
and were subject to a judgment. At that point, the DMV would
suspend the driver's license for three years and most people
adhere to a payment plan, if so, the driver's license would be
reinstated. If the driver missed (audio difficulties) [then
offline] ....
4:13:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS (audio difficulties).
4:13:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on a
scenario with $50,000-100,000 policy with a judgment for
$150,000 ... (audio difficulties) would the driver have to pay
the SR 22 [financial responsibility].
MR. STANKER answered that he could not comment on the insurance
aspect of the question. He said as the statute was currently
written, that if a person was liable for money owed via a
judgment, the party would fall into the circumstance of license
suspension and would be subject to lifetime SR-22 requirement.
4:14:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, with respect to drivers with SR-22
insurance, asked whether the insurance had a limit or cap.
MR. STANKER said he was not familiar with that insurance and
deferred to Ms. Thompson or the Division of Insurance.
4:15:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her earlier scenario in which a
driver had a $100,000 policy but was subject to a judgment for
$150,000, whether the driver would be required to submit to SR-
22 for life. She recollected that SR-22 also had a limit, which
she thought was the minimum amount of insurance, so she thought
this simply made no sense whatsoever.
4:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding of SR-22, relating
it was special risk insurance, so drivers must pay higher rates
for the same coverage. He compared penalties for imposing SR-22
for insured or uninsured drivers having the same incident and
subsequently being required to obtain SR-22 financial
responsibility, with the former subject to SR-22 for three years
and the latter subject to life. He asked for further
clarification on whether that was correct.
MR. STANKER answered yes; adding that this statute was enacted
in 1959 and has not been updated since then.
4:17:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL was unaware that the state had SR-22
provisions in statute in 1959. He questioned the discrepancy in
the length of time of penalties for similar infractions. He
viewed the lifetime SR-22 requirements as not making distinction
between insured or uninsured motorists; yet the three-year
penalties were automatically imposed for uninsured motorists
involved in accidents with damages. It seemed to him that if
the insurance rates doubled it was less likely for the driver to
pay off the damages.
4:18:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the minimum
amount of insurance required by law.
MS. THOMPSON answered that the driver must have liability
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that liability
insurance policies range from $50,000 to $1,000,000. She asked
for further clarification on the minimum amount of liability
insurance.
MS. THOMPSON was unsure but thought it was $25-$50-$100
thousand.
4:19:01 PM
MR. STANKER said he was unsure of the amount.
MS. THOMPSON offered to look it up and report to the committee.
4:19:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that the state
required a minimum amount of insurance and that it was
relatively low amount.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related a scenario in which a person had
the minimum insurance required, and the judgment exceeded the
coverage by $50,000 and the driver was required to provide SR-22
coverage; however, the high-risk insurance would not be above
the minimum requirement either.
MS. THOMPSON responded that SR-22 provided [a certificate of]
financial responsibility or a financial responsibility filing.
In further response, she said the amount depended upon the
carrier and was not a specific amount, but rather was high-risk
insurance and only certain carriers provided it.
4:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how much insurance the state
required with SR-22, noting she thought the state required the
same amount of insurance, but it was more expensive under the
SR-22 insurance.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:20:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the logic in requiring someone
to carry high risk insurance when the coverage has the same
insurance limits. She was unsure if she was missing something.
MS. THOMPSON was unsure if it was logical but that is the way
the statute is written. She said most of the people required to
submit to SR-22 insurance are uninsured drivers. She explained
the process, such that these drivers do not have insurance, have
motor vehicle accidents, and the other parties' uninsured
motorist coverage pays the damages. Subsequently, these drivers
are sued, which results in judgments against them. These
drivers must submit to SR-22 requirements for three years, but
if they default on the final judgement, they are then required
to have lifetime SR-22 requirements.
4:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that it would also pick
up motorists with the minimum amount of insurance.
MS. THOMPSON offered to compile data to better understand what
customers are affected by the SR-22 provisions.
4:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that someone will still
be affected even if it was not many drivers. She did not agree
with the statutory provisions as currently written.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:23:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to "drill down" on SR-22 but was
interested in members' comments.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered to work with Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins' office to improve the statutes related to SR-22 for the
public.
4:24:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was still interested in the data
even though he agreed with Representative LeDoux's comments. He
wondered how many youths may have been subject to lifetime SR-22
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related a personal scenario that illustrated
how he could have been affected by SR-22 insurance that he
thought would have been unjust.
4:25:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested an SR-22 chart to allow the
committee to better compare what circumstances warranted SR-22
provisions. He also asked whether an insurance company would be
breaking the law if they chose to charge regular rates instead
of SR-22 rates.
4:26:07 PM
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department
of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), stated
that HB 409 does not affect Title 21, the Division of Insurance
statutes, but falls under Title 28. She offered to research and
respond to the committee.
4:26:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the Division of Insurance
would have the expertise.
MS. LATHAM answered that the SR-22 requirements are all set by
the DMV under Title 28; however, if the committee has questions,
the division will work with DMV to respond.
4:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed concern that this may adversely
affect some youth in rural Alaska and this warrants additional
work.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 409 would be set aside.
[HB 409 was held over.]
^APPROVAL OF INTRODUCTION OF POTENTIAL COMMITTEE LEGISLATION
APPROVAL OF INTRODUCTION OF POTENTIAL COMMITTEE LEGISLATION
4:29:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be the approval of potential committee legislation. This
proposed bill would give the Department of Environmental
Conservation the ability to promulgate fees for dairies. (audio
difficulties).
4:29:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved that "An Act Relating to Fees Levied
by Resource Agencies for Designated Regulatory Services" be
introduced as a House State Affairs Standing Committee bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed concern that members have not
seen a draft.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the committee would request a
work draft to share with the committee.
There being no objection, the motion to introduce the bill
passed.
4:30:18 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was recessed
at 4:30 p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting reconvened
April 13, 2018.]